Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Maine Joins Colorado in Disqualifying Trump from Office; Emails, Recordings Detail Effort to Keep Trump in Office; California Braces for More Towering Waves, Flooding. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired December 29, 2023 - 06:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[06:00:50]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Bumped off the ballot again. Maine removes Donald Trump from the GOP primary. Now, he faces two legal challenges to his 2024 campaign. What this means for the election as the Supreme Court faces another hugely-consequential case.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Plus, damage control on the campaign trail. Nikki Haley says, of course, the Civil War was about slavery. Where she's calling the question that set off the controversy a set-up.

Plus, breaking overnight, Russia launches what Ukraine calls the largest aerial assault since the war began. The East, the West, the capital, all hit. Nearly a dozen people are dead. Ukraine renewing its call for international help.

CNN THIS MORNING starts right now.

MATTINGLY: And good morning, everyone. It is the last Friday of 2023. I'm Phil Mattingly with Erica Hill in New York. Poppy is off today.

And Maine has become the second state to throw Donald Trump off the primary ballot. Just like Colorado, Maine's secretary of state has decided Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6th and is, therefore, disqualified under the Constitution.

Here's what she told CNN after the big announcement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHENNA BELLOWS (D), MAINE SECRETARY OF STATE: January 6th was an attack not only on the Capitol and government officials, and on the rule of law. It was insurrection. And the U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on our government, on the foundations of our government. And the Maine election law and the Constitution required, indeed, allocated me to act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Trump's attorneys vowing to fight that decision. And we're now looking, of course, at yet another historic legal battle that could land in the Supreme Court and could have massive implications for the presidential election. Plus, we're expecting a court ruling, too, in Oregon, where there is

another major lawsuit to disqualify the former president. Also new this morning, just hours after that decision in Maine, California's top election official announced Trump will be on that state's ballot.

MATTINGLY: We start off this morning with CNN's Katelyn Polantz, who is tracking all of this, somehow, someway at this point. Especially Katelyn, when you look at the map and where different states have gone and what they've decided over the course of the last couple weeks or what they could decide, going forward. Where does this legal battle actually go from here?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil and Erica, 2024 is going to be complicated, at very least, specifically, regarding whether Donald Trump can be on the ballot in primary elections because of this constitutional clause that bars insurrectionists from being voted for or holding office.

As of now, as of last night, we have this second major decision out of a state saying, no, Donald Trump, cannot be eligible to hold office because of his role related to January 6th.

So first, Colorado's support -- Colorado's court system decided that. And then yesterday, after essentially hearing from voters looking at evidence, the Maine secretary of state made a very similar decision, deemed Trump to be both someone who engaged in the insurrection of January 6th and also decided that she had the ability, as the secretary of state, the responsibility, even, to choose and to determine that he was not eligible to be on primary ballots in 2024 in that presidential election.

Maine is going to be voting on Super Tuesday, just like Colorado. Here is a little bit more of the explanation from Shenna Bellows last night, speaking on CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BELLOWS: The oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first and foremost. The textual analysis of the Constitution and the facts laid before me at the hearing, that I was obligated to hold under Maine law, brought me to this decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POLANTZ: Trump's team, of course, was not happy with this decision. They very quickly came out and called her a leftist. She is a Democrat. She's elected.

And they said that anyone who is making these sorts of choices to keep Trump off the ballot, whether it's a court or a secretary of state, that they are engaging in partisan election interference.

Trump's team also vowed to go to the state courts. And that is where this goes next. So the secretary of state did make this determination, after looking at this, as a case, almost as a legal case. Though she's not the justice system. [06:05:11]

From this, from this decision that she made, it can go to the Maine court system. It looks like the courts in Maine will have to make a decision by the end of January.

And of course, the U.S. Supreme Court, we're going to wait and see what they do related to Colorado and the law everywhere on this.

MATTINGLY: All right. Katelyn Polantz. 2024 is going to be complicated, according to Katelyn Polantz. Put a pin in that, because 2023, it was so Zen. It was chill.

HILL: So Zen, yes.

MATTINGLY: And so was 2022. Katelyn, you got a lot more reporting on other issues. We're going to get back to you soon. Thank you very much.

HILL: Let's dig into this one a little bit more with CNN analyst, Natasha Alford; CNN senior legal analyst, Elie Honig; and CNN political commentator Errol Louis.

Good to see all of you this morning as we move into complicated territory here.

When we look at this decision in Maine and what -- what could come out of it, how much, Elie, do you think this actually increases the pressure on the Supreme Court to take up Colorado?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think it takes it from likely to virtually certain now, that the Supreme Court will take up this case.

Because if we look at the map, the actual physical map of the United States, now we have two states, as it currently stands, and this seemingly is changing every few hours.

But we have two states, Colorado and Maine, who say Donald Trump is out. He is off our ballot. When voters go to the ballot boxes in November, there's going to be one major party name. It's going to be Joe Biden.

And the Republican side, if Donald Trump is the nominee, will be blank.

However, a dozen and a half or so other states, when you look at various legal challenges, challenges in the court, state and federal, challenges to secretaries of state, a dozen to a dozen half other states said, No, he's on. We're rejecting this.

And this is part of, I think, the chaos that people feared when it came to wheeling out the 14th Amendment.

And what we're seeing now, and it's not necessarily legally wrong, for reasons we can get into. But what we're seeing now is different states reaching different conclusions through different procedures for different reasons. And that's where we need the Supreme Court to come in and give us some uniformity to all of this.

MATTINGLY: Natasha, to Elie's point. It's not necessarily legally wrong. I think what we're alluding to here is the politics of -- and how people react and the patchwork kind of all converging into one. It's going to be dangerous. Well, it could be dangerous.

I think that's what you hear from -- even some Democrats who are opposed to this, saying if there's going to be a way, we should either beat him at the ballot box or there's a bunch of criminal cases. Focus on that, not this.

NATASHA ALFORD, CNN ANALYST: Right. I was really struck by Governor Gavin Newsom's response to this. Right? Because this could have been a slam-dunk.

You think a Democratic governor. You know, this is a Democratic- leaning state. And yet, he -- even he is saying, we let people make this decision. We don't make this decision for them.

So it's a slam dunk for the Trump team's narrative if you get more Democratic-led states that go along with this decision.

HILL: And we are hearing, we even heard from a Republican. I can't believe I'm agreeing with Gavin Newsom on this.

But you see them saying, Hey, I agree with Gavin Newsom on this.

The clock is ticking here, Errol. And that is really what everybody is looking at, as we wait to see if the Supreme Court is going to take this up. Maine has, as Kaitlan pointed out, until the end of the month. What potentially happens if this is not resolved in time?

ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, first of all, the Supreme Court is going to have to move, and they're going to have to move quickly. And we saw that they can and will do so. We saw that in 2000, when you know, here was a lot on the line. And they stay up late, work on the weekend, get their paperwork done.

But -- but the chaos could be quite serious. Like, you know, spread out among these states that have reached all of these different conclusions.

Some states have really tended toward the conclusion that, Well, we are not going to keep them off the ballot. But we're not clear as to whether or not he'll be eligible to serve. Meaning they want to kick the can down the road.

That's why the Supreme Court has got to sort of really get their hands around this. Because there could simply just be chaos. That there -- there will be questions about whether or not Super Tuesday or any of the other different primaries and caucuses are legitimate.

It will start to affect turnout. There will then be a secondary wave of -- of lawsuits around all of that. People feeling like they've been disenfranchised.

This is the level of chaos that we have a Supreme Court to prevent.

MATTINGLY: Elie, to that point, my assumption had been, the Supreme Court is going to weigh in and solve all the problems, give all the answers.

The scope of what the Supreme Court does is not -- we don't know exactly what it's going to be. It could leave some openings, particularly in the general election.

HONIG: That's a great point. The Supreme Court is not going going to just wave a magic wand and say, OK, all 50 states, here's how each of you have to do it.

They can only consider the actual disputes before them. Now fortunately, the Maine decision yesterday is specifically based on the Colorado decision. It mentions. It says the secretary of state writes, While I'm basing this largely on what just happened in Colorado.

And she says in an opinion, if Colorado gets struck down, we're going to get struck down, too. So I think the Supreme Court can -- has to start with those cases.

And if they do strike down or uphold what's happened in Colorado and Maine, that will definitely give some guidance. We have no guidance here.

[06:10:03]

It's important to notice, right? We've never had this kind of challenge. It's never played itself out in the courts. And at minimum, if the Supreme Court takes this case and rules, it will answer every question, but it will give us something.

HILL: Real quickly to that point, you said last night that you're -- you're not convinced the Supreme Court would actually take up the question of whether or not Trump engaged in an insurrection.

That's one of the big questions, right, is how do we quantify this under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, if he hasn't been charged criminally or convicted. Can they really not take up that part of it? Because that, to me, sows even further chaos.

HONIG: They cannot take up the question of whether he engaged in insurrection, and I think they will not take up the question of whether he engaged in insurrection.

If and when the Supreme Court takes this, it will be about procedure and due process. Was he given fair procedures with the state law? Is it even up to these states and secretaries of state to decide this in the first place? Or does it have to come from Congress?

I don't think any way the Supreme Court touches the insurrectionist question. It will be based on due process.

HILL: Complicated.

MATTINGLY: 2024.

HILL: Complicated.

MATTINGLY: Put a pin in it.

HILL: Thank you, guys. Stick with us.

MATTINGLY: Well, Republican presidential hopeful Chris Christie will join us later on CNN THIS MORNING to discuss this ruling and a whole lot more from a very, very busy 24 hours on the campaign trial.

And later, secretary of state of Maine, Shenna Bellows, will join us live to explain why she made this decision and what she thinks of the fallout from it.

HILL: We also have CNN exclusive reporting this morning inside the Trump campaign's plot to overturn the 2020 election. Recordings and e- mails revealing just how close they were to pulling off that fake elector scheme.

MATTINGLY: And dozens of people run for their lives as huge waves pound the California coast. The damage these waves are -- look at this. It's wild. What it's doing and the new danger today. We'll get into it. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:15:30]

HILL: An exclusive report this morning. CNN has obtained recordings and e-mails that show just how far the Trump campaign went to try to overturn the 2020 election.

MATTINGLY: Pro-Trump attorney Ken Chesebro, who's being investigated in several states, spoke with Michigan prosecutors recently. That interview reveals the last-minute scramble on the eve of January 6th to get fake ballots certificates to Washington, D.C., in time for then-Vice President Mike Pence to use them the next day.

HILL: CNN's Katelyn Polantz is back with us. So Katelyn, we've heard some of that interview. How did Chesebro explain, though, this chain of events leading up to January 6th?

POLANTZ: Well Erica, Ken Chesebro essentially described it as a scramble where people who were higher up than he was were involved, including people who, at least by name, had the title as lawyers for the Trump campaign, that had an affiliation with the Trump campaign.

But this story, as we were looking into this, as we were listening to audio, as we saw e-mails and we're talking to sources, it really just highlighted how there was such lengths, such steps taken to get those fake elector ballots into the hands of Mike Pence.

So that potentially, Trump's electors could be used to help him overturn the election.

We've talked so much about these fake elector certificates. We had all really thought that they were just mailed. But Ken Chesebro spoke to prosecutors about in Michigan is that he spoke about how these things got stuck in the mail, or there was a belief they were lost in the mail or stuck in a sorting facility. They weren't going to get to the Capitol on time to be used for Trump's behalf.

And so, someone asks on an e-mail chain with Ken Chesebro, somebody affiliated with the campaign, also working with him, can we charter a flight? That's at 11 p.m. on January 4th.

They're right up against the deadline of January 6th. Ultimately, the -- the elector certificates from Wisconsin and Michigan are ferried by humans on commercial flights to get to D.C.

They are kept. They are delivered to people at the Trump Hotel. And then they are also placed into the hands of people working with members of Congress to get them to Pence, because you can't just get them there.

Here's a little bit more from Ken Chesebro on how he decided this episode.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEN CHESEBRO, PRO-TRUMP ATTORNEY: This is like, yes, so this is a high-level decision to get the Michigan and Wisconsin votes there. And they had to enlist a -- you know, a U.S. senator to try to expedite it, to get it to -- get it to Pence in time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POLANTZ: So one thing Chesebro is highlighting there is essentially this split tension in the campaign, this pointing of fingers among people who are working on this.

Whose call was it? Whose responsibility was it that led to this level of scramble?

MATTINGLY: The details, Katelyn, in the story are -- are wild and show just how comprehensive, if scrambled, the effort was. Why are we learning this much now?

POLANTZ: We're learning this much now because Ken Chesebro, this attorney who was working for Trump, he wasn't talking before. He took the Fifth whenever he testified to the House Select Committee previously.

But after he was charged with a crime in Fulton County, Georgia, he then pleaded guilty and started talking. He talked to prosecutors there. He talked to prosecutors in other states, including in Michigan.

We were able to obtain this audio, as well as some e-mails that really had not been out there before among him and people with campaign e- mail addresses, at the very last minute before January 6th.

The big question remains on how much the special counsel's office, the federal investigation, the case against Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., how much this factors into it.

We do think prosecutors know a little bit about this, because they hinted in their indictment of Trump that they recognize that these Michigan/Wisconsin certificates, that they didn't arrive by mail. They came some other way.

MATTINGLY: All right. Katelyn Polantz, the story is excellent and very detailed. Read it on CNN.com. Appreciate it.

HILL: I want to bring back in now CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

Elie, as we look at all of this, as Kaitlan said, it would appear that the special counsel is aware of the scramble. Taking into account this new reporting, what does this do? What is the impact on Donald Trump?

HONIG: So great reporting, first of all. And I was riveted when I read it. I was reading it with a prosecutor's eye.

Kenneth Chesebro is a mixed bag for prosecutors and Donald Trump. And mixed bags aren't great when you're a prosecutor and you bear the burden of proving your case, not by 51 percent but beyond a reasonable doubt, to a unanimous jury.

[06:20:09]

Here's why. Chesebro has clearly been valuable to prosecutors, because he's giving them details. The hope -- all the details that came in just laid out.

It gives life to the allegations. How exactly did these ballots make their way from Minnesota or Wisconsin to Washington, D.C.? That's important for prosecutors to know. It gives them leads.

But this is important. Kenneth Chesebro will never take the stand. He will never be called to the stand by a prosecutor, by Fani Willis or Jack Smith.

And here's why. A line from all the reporting, a crucial line from Katelyn's reporting. I'll read it verbatim.

"Chesebro has maintained, then and now, that the plan" -- the fake elector plan -- "was a lawful move to preserve Trump's legal rights."

If he says that, and that apparently is his view, he's poison to prosecutors. He will be what we call a Brady witness, meaning a witness that's actually helpful to the defense, based on an old case called Brady.

So he's useful investigatively. But anyone who thinks he's going to be the next John Dean or the smoking gun witness, absolutely not. Mark my words. No prosecutor will call him to the stand. Defendants may call him to the stand. HILL: John Dean told me last night. He doesn't think Jack Smith needs him.

HONIG: Listen, there is no other John Dean. Take it from John Dean himself. There's only been one.

MATTINGLY: It was -- you know, the other -- most interesting thing for me in the reporting who was going through the e-mails and seeing who's on the email, who was responding, who was deeply involved.

But also the lawmakers involved. We knew Ron Johnson, the senator from Wisconsin, and Scott Perry, the congressman from Pennsylvania, had roles. But listen to what Chesebro says that we obtained in the report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHESEBRO: so he finds Representative Perry, whoever it was, from Pennsylvania, and who gets a staffer to agree to meet us at like 3:45 p.m.

And so -- and I don't know why -- why we did that. So Mike Brown -- I had the Wisconsin stuff. Mike Brown had the Michigan stuff. We walked to the Longworth Office Building.

And the guy with Perry, or whatever his name is, and some other fellow, that were like staff members of -- of the House, took them and said, We're going to walk them over to the Senate and give it a Senate staffer. Who, I guess, was a Senate staffer for Johnson.

And so that's how -- I don't know why logistically we didn't take it directly to Johnson. But that's how we did it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: My guess is because they can't get into the Capitol building, as non-staffers or members. But when you look at kind of that chain and who was involved, as a prosecutor, what does it tell you?

HONIG: So this fills in one of the bigger unknowns of the whole question for me, which is just how involved were these members of Congress?

We've seen some of them politically get up there and espouse false election fraud theories. But how much were they involved in the actual execution of this?

And I think this is where somebody like Kenneth Chesebro can be valuable, again, on an investigative level.

Scott Perry. Scott Perry is really in the middle of a lot of this. Again, not just in the political way but in an execution way. Here we have Scott Perry integrally involved in getting these fake ballots into the Capitol.

Earlier, we learned that Scott Perry was involved in the scheme to try to take over DOJ and install this lawyer, this Jeffrey Clark.

Now, Scott Perry has not been charged with anything. He's not even listed as one of the coconspirators. I wonder if some of that is because of his status as a member of Congress. Maybe they don't want to deal with some of the special privileges members of Congress have.

But boy, he is right in the middle of this whole thing.

And one thing you can do as a prosecutor, with Chesbro's information all of that is fair game. You can go talk to all of these other people. Bring them in, subpoena them, force them to the stand.

So he's useful -- again, I just want to stress this -- Chesbro. But he's not going to be the smoking gun witness.

HILL: All right. Elie, appreciate it, as always. Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, 30-foot waves pummel California's coast and flood beach towns. You're going to see how close some people came to disaster and how long it's expected to last.

HILL: Plus, Wall Street could close out 2023 with quite the bang. The records markets just may set today. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:27:55]

HILL: This is so wild. California's coast are bracing for waves of 30 feet or more, after large swells like this pounded the coastline. In fact, one wave briefly swept some 20 people away. Briefly yesterday.

This happened in Ventura County, Northwest of L.A. No one was seriously hurt. But they did have to run to escape.

MATTINGLY: And these waves are triggering flooding, as well, damaging businesses near the beaches and even triggering some evacuations. CNN's Derek Van Dam has been tracking all of this and how long these dangerous conditions are going to last.

Derek, what do we think here?

DEREK VAN DAM, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Well, Phil, you know, I have seen rogue waves with my own eyes. They are dangerous, and they can catch people off-guard. Just like what happened in Ventura County yesterday.

So what exactly is a rogue wave? Remember, we have ocean swell that moves across the ocean at all times.

But sometimes we get that conjoining with a large low-pressure system that creates strong surface winds. So that strong winds will create large waves on the surface of the ocean.

But that's working in opposite with that ocean swell that traverses across the Pacific Ocean in this instance. And what it does is it quickly, actually, shortens the wavelength. Remember, that's the difference between the wave peak and trough.

And it creates a larger-than-normal wave or a rogue wave, that can crash upon the shoreline and taking people off-guard and can be extremely dangerous and lethal in some instances.

Here's the low-pressure system that was responsible for the oncoming surge and a swell that was working in conjunction with this. We have another round of large waves that are anticipated today right through Friday morning.

That is why we have these high surf warnings and advisories, dotting the entire California coastline. In fact, this could cause some coastal flooding concerns and dangerous rip currents.

Bottom line here, Phil and Erica, you need to stay out of the water. It is extremely dangerous to be an onlooker and to see what's happening along the coastline, because these waves can catch you off- guard in a moment's notice.

MATTINGLY: Pay attention in the mornings. Derek Van Dam, thank you.

Well, all eyes will be on the forecast and on Times Square Sunday night as we count down to 2024. This year, there are concerns that the Israel/Hamas war will inspire a lone wolf attack.

HILL: CNN's John Miller takes us inside the security preparations.